Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
Hi Anthony!
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:25:22 +0000, "Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Right, this is section 6 of GPLv2 of section 10 of GPLv3. Let's quote
>>the latter:
>>
>> 10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
>>
>> Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
>> receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
>> propagate that work, subject to this License. [...]
>>
>>> And I granted the licence as "v2 or later".
>>
>>The text of the GPL says "subject to this License", i.e. GPLv3, not
>>"subject to all Licenses". So I don't see how your conclusion follows.
> As I said in another post, you're confusing the licence *grant* with the
> licence *itself*.
> Let's say I write some software and - as I would - I stick a notice that
> says "this software is licenced v2 or v3". That is my grant.
Ok.
> You now look at the code. You like v3, so you say "v3 is my licence" and
> distribute it as v3.
Ok.
> Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of
> them can say "actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence".
Why do you think that my recipients will get your entire grant? GPLv3
only says that they will get your grant for _this_ License, i.e. GPLv3.
> Now let's say you write some code, add it to my work to make a
> derivative work and, being a trusting bloke your grant says your code is
> "v3 or later".
>
> You can choose to distribute the code under v2 or v3, because you need
> to comply with my grant for my code. You can do what you like with your
> own code.
>
> Your recipients, now, can ONLY distribute under "V3 ONLY". They can
> choose v2 for my code, but that won't let them distribute yours, so they
> can't distribute the derivative work under v2. They can choose v4 (when
> it comes out) for your code, but that won't let them distribute mine, so
> they can't use that for the derivative work. They CAN choose v3 which is
> valid for both your code, and mine, so the project COPYING file should
> say "the only licence valid for the work as a whole is v3, but
> individual parts have their own licence and may be copied under a
> different licence, if appropriate".
I agree here.
Alexander Cherepanov
Reply to: